The List (January 2004)

Oh Christ - another bloody year of this!

Advertising copy for this one (4Q, 2003 Malt Advocate) states, regarding this bottle: "It isn't chill filtered or adulterated in any way, so all its intensity is preserved."

Since, there are some pretty stiff consequences to false advertising, I am wondering who is in error here? And if "The Doctor" is wrong about this one, how many others are wrong?

Hi Jeff,

Those of us who have been here a while don't give a toss about The Doctor's revelations. God knows where he takes his information from, but believe me there are more inaccuracies in the list than just the inclusion of a'bunadh in the "Artificially Coloured" list.

There has been a debate on this NG about whether there is anything wrong about adding a bit of caramel to the whisky, why it is done, etc. It's up to you to decide what you think of it. Personally, I just ignore both The Doctor's posts and the possible traces of caramel in my whisky. Some of the greatest whiskies out there are "artificially coloured" with a bit of caramel, including Lagavulin 16yo, Ardbeg 17yo, Mortlach 16yo, Highland Park

25yo and a host of others. Still, they are universally regarded superior to, say, just about any Miltonduff from Signatory, Cadenhead or Adelphi. Despite the fact that the latter will be caramel-free. Most independents do not interfere with the colour of the whiskies they bottle.

Sorry for this bit of troll-feeding, folks.

Cheers, Rajmund

Since I long ago kill-filed "The Doctor" the only time I'm bothered by his posts is when folks like yourself reply to him. Ignor him, and he will go away. Those who like his drivel have probably kill-filed ME, and therefore won't be bothered by *this* post.

;>)